For this project study, I examined whether training was successful for the implementation of the three strategies specified in the OETT grant proposal: teacher collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices. I also examined what influence PD had on teachers’ implementation of instructional strategies while incorporating technology with three of the 10 selected practices of high achieving schools. I sought to gain an understanding of how the PD influenced teachers’ shared values, collaboration, and instructional practices using instructional technology. An evaluation report was developed to discuss the program evaluation and findings. The subsections in this section include (a) project strengths and limitations; (b)
recommendations for alternative approaches; (c) scholarship, project development, and leadership and change; (d) reflections on the importance of the work; and (e)
implications, applications, and directions for future research.
Project Strengths and Limitations Strengths
Program evaluation involves examining a program and its results to determine its effectiveness (Patton, 2015). PD needs to be evaluated to determine its effectiveness (Guskey, 2002). The first strength of this project is that administrators can use it to examine the effectiveness of the PD in influencing teachers’ shared values, collaboration, and instructional practices regarding instructional technology. In creating the project, I considered the technology available, both before and after receiving the grant, to
potentially be implemented in instructional strategies. I formulated the project using the data collected during the study.
The data collected and analyzed from the TPACK survey were based on a 53 question survey designed to survey preservice teachers’ knowledge of teaching and technology. Data collected and analyzed from the one-on-one interviews were based on 10 open-ended questions. This allowed me to identify the influence technology PD had on teachers’ shared values regarding instructional technology, and their collaboration and instructional practices using instructional technology. The data collected and analyzed from the classroom observations were recorded on an observation protocol during a 45-minute visit to the classroom. The evaluation report helped outline the findings and recommendations for future decision-making.
An additional strength of the project is that it gives the teachers in the school examples of how various teachers have implemented technology in their instructional strategies because of the technology PD. Often there is not enough time for teachers to visit other classrooms to get additional ideas on how to implement the technology. The evaluation report contains examples of ways the technology is being implemented. A final strength of this project is that other districts may be able to adapt it to provide PD in implementing technology into instructional strategies for their teachers.
Limitations
Limitations existed as I developed the evaluation report. The first limitation pertained to the self-reported data collected from the TPACK survey, which was similar to limitations found by Gebre et al. (2015) and the use of self-reported data. A second
limitation of this study was it was built with the PD provided by the OETT grant in mind.
It is possible that other districts will have different technology PD. If a district is not a recipient of the OETT grant, the evaluation report created for this study would be less beneficial to that district. Another limitation of this study is that the research was only conducted at one school that was a recipient of the OETT grant, preventing comparison of findings with other schools that have received the technology PD as part of the OETT grant. A final limitation of this study was the sample size. Although all but two teachers at the study school elected to participate in the study, the sample size for this study was 18 participants.
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
I examined whether training was successful for the implementation of teacher collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices as well as what influence PD had on teachers’ implementation of instructional strategies. I collected data by first administering the TPACK survey, followed by participant interviews and classroom observations. I could have completed the classroom observations prior to interviewing participants to gain additional insight into the data collected in the classroom
observations, which may be a consideration for future research.
Another alternative approach pertains to the study design, which could be a case study rather than a program evaluation. A case study would have allowed for the
collection of data that was focused more on the activities of the group instead of the shared patterns that developed (Creswell, 2012). By designing a case study, PD could have been developed to support teachers’ growth in the implementation of technology in
instructional practices. An alternative definition of the problem could include teacher buy-in of the implementation of technology in instructional practices. A second
alternative definition of the problem could include the exploration of why teacher use of technology in instructional practices was low prior to the PD provided by the OETT grant.
Scholarship, Project Development and Evaluation, and Leadership and Change As a doctoral student at Walden University, I have learned what it means to be scholarly. During this doctoral journey, I learned to conduct and analyze research. I also believe I became more skilled at conducting interviews and observations as well as analyzing results from data gained from surveys. Through the challenges I faced, I learned to overcome obstacles and to find a way to press on. I became more disciplined as both a student and an educator. I learned to plan, as well as manage, my time more efficiently to ensure schoolwork and professional work were completed in a timely manner.
Project Development
During the process of developing the project, my desire was to determine whether training was successful for the implementation of teacher collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices. I also wanted to determine what influence PD had on teachers’ implementation of instructional strategies while incorporating technology with three of the 10 selected practices of high achieving schools. After the first round of data was collected through the TPACK surveys, a pattern emerged in regards to teachers’
level of TPACK knowledge and the integration of technology into instructional practices.
With this in mind, a literature review was conducted in which teachers’ levels of TPACK knowledge and levels of integration of technology into instructional practices were researched. When I conducted the interviews and observations, several themes emerged.
Many of the same themes emerged in both the interviews and observations. Through these themes and the literature researched, it became apparent technology PD increased teachers’ levels of expertise and integration of technology into instructional practices, as well as increasing teachers’ collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching
practices. This process has taught me the value of collecting and analyzing data to design a program evaluation and develop an evaluation report to meet the needs of the
participants. The expertise I gained through this process will help me when I design future program evaluations.
Leadership and Change
The development of the evaluation report has allowed me to learn important lessons related to leadership and change. I began my doctoral journey as an educator who would take a stand for my students both in and outside of the classroom. However, that is where my boldness ended. I never saw myself as a leader; instead, I mostly took on the role of follower. Through this doctoral journey, I found myself in a leadership role. From project development to collecting and analyzing data, I was the leader. I was the one directing the path the study would take. I have always been a good follower, but this journey allowed me to be a good leader as well. Through this project study, I was able to enhance my leadership skills.
Reflection on Importance of the Work
The outcome-based evaluation conducted as part of the development of the evaluation report was important because it helped to determine the level of effectiveness of the training for the implementation of the three strategies specified in the OETT grant proposal: teacher collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices. I also wanted to determine what influence PD had on teachers’ implementation of instructional strategies while incorporating technology with three of the 10 selected practices of high achieving schools. This study will contribute to the growing body of research on the topic of technology PD. The findings of my program evaluation indicated that technology PD increased the implementation of teacher collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices. The technology PD also had a positive influence on teachers’
implementation of instructional strategies effectively while incorporating technology with three of the 10 selected practices of high achieving schools. Participants expressed they have not had the opportunity to observe colleagues’ implementation of technology into instructional practices. To address this issue, I made recommendations to the study site to continue technology PD and allow teachers time to observe colleagues’ implementation of technology into instructional practices. The potential influence on social change will be driven by the partnership between teachers, administrators, and staff to continue the increase in technology implementation into instructional practices and technology PD at the local, state, and national levels.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
This project study was grounded in Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK theory, as it underpinned the conceptual framework that guided the OETT grant program, and Guskey’s five levels of PD evaluation (Guskey, 2002). The literature review and the findings from the study support technology PD to influence the implementation of technology into instructional practices. This may support a new theory regarding technology PD and its influence on the implementation of technology into instructional practices. Specific recommendations for future research include broadening the scope of the current study to determine why teacher use of technology in instructional practices was low prior to the PD provided by the OETT grant.
Summary
The final section of this study on increasing collaboration, shared values, and authentic teaching practices through technological professional development has
addressed project strengths and limitations. One project strength was that administrators can use the study to examine the effectiveness of the PD in influencing teachers’ shared values, collaboration, and instructional practices regarding instructional technology.
Another project strength was it gives all teachers in the school examples of how various teachers have implemented technology into their instructional strategies because of the technology PD. The limitations included the self-reported data collected from the TPACK survey, the study was built with the PD provided by the OETT grant in mind, and the sample size. I used triangulation methods to increase the study’s credibility. My personal reflections on scholarship, project development, and leadership and change have
outlined the learning experience I gained as well as my growth. The program evaluation of the effectiveness of the PD provided by the OETT grant at FVMS provided a
foundation for social change. Based on this project study, facilitators from the K20 Center can replicate this study to evaluate the effectiveness of the PD provided by the OETT grant for all schools who are recipients of the OETT grant. Administrators at FVMS, as well as administrators in other districts, can use the evaluation report to communicate findings and make recommendations for future technology PD.
References
Acikalin, F. S. (2014). Use of instructional technologies in science classrooms: Teachers’
perspectives. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET),13(2), 197-240.
Andrews, D., & Abawi, L. (2017). Three-dimensional pedagogy: A new professionalism in educational contexts. Improving Schools, 20(1), 76-94.
doi:10.1177/1365480216652025
Bakir, N. (2015). An exploration of contemporary realities of technology and teacher education: lessons learned. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(3), 117-130. doi:10.1080/21532974.2015.1040930
Bakir, N. (2016). Technology and teacher education: A brief glimpse of the research and practice that have shaped the field. TechTrends, 60, 21-29.doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0013-4
Bebell, D., & Pedulla, J. (2015). A quantitative investigation into the impacts of 1:1 iPads on early learners’ ELA and Math achievement. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14, 191-215.
Benson, S. N. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: Using TPACK to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 153-172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Brown, L. (2014). Best practices of leadership in educational technology. Journal of
Educational Technology, 11(1), 1-6. doi:10.26634/jet.11.1.2668
Champion, R. (2015). Make a path for evaluation. Journal of Staff Development, 36(6), 30-34.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Corporation for National and Community Service. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.nationalservice.gove/sites/defualt/files/resources/TypesofEvaluation.
Coskun, Y. D. (2015). Promoting digital change in higher education: Evaluating the curriculum digitalization. Journal of International Education Research, 11(3), 197-204. doi: 10.19030/jier.v11i3.9371
Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity in teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/0741713604268894
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniels, J. S., Jacobsen, M., Varnhagen, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Barriers to systemic, effective, and sustainable technology use in high school classrooms. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), 1-14.
Dauphinee, W. D. (2015). The role of theory-based outcome frameworks in program evaluation: considering the case of contribution analysis. Medical Teacher, 37(11), 979-982. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2015.1087484
Di Blas, N., Fiore, A., Mainetti, L., Vergallo, R., & Paolini, P. (2014). A portal of educational resources: Providing evidence for matching pedagogy with technology. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1-26.
doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.22906
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Schulz-Zander, R. (2017). Determinants of teachers’
collaborative use of information and communications technology for teaching and learning: A European perspective. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 781-799. doi:10.1177/1474904116655811
Dunfour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Professional learning communities at work:
New Insights for Improving Schools. Reston, VA: Solution Tree.
Eddy, P., & Lawrence, A. (2013). Wikis as platforms for authentic assessment.
Innovative Higher Education, 38, 253-265. doi:10.1007/s10755-012-9239-7 Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
Evans, M. A., Nino, M., Deater-Deckard, K., & Chang, M. (2015). School-wide adoption of a mathematics learning game in a middle school setting: Using the TPACK framework to analyze effects on practice. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 495-504. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0225-y
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Franklin, D., & Blankenberger, B. (2016). Program evaluation of community college learning assistance centers: What do LAC directors think? Community College Review, 44(1), 3-25. doi:10.1177/0091552115609998
Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Aulls, M. W. (2015). Conceptions of effective teaching and perceived use of computer technologies in active learning classrooms.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 204-220.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Health and Life Skills Guide to Implementation (K-9). (2002). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/482311/is.pdf
Hechter, R. P., & Vermette, L. (2013). Technology integration in K-12 science
classrooms: An analysis of barriers and implications. Themes in Science &
Technology Education, 6(2), 73-90.
Hobb, R., & Coiro, J. (2016). Everyone learns from everyone: Collaborative and interdisciplinary professional development in digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(6), 623-629. doi:10.1002/jaal.502
Hughes, J. E. (2013). Descriptive indicators of future teachers’ technology integration in the PK-12 classroom: Trends from a laptop-infused teacher education program.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 491-516.
doi:10.2190/EC.48.4.e
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kafyulilo, A. C., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2015). Supporting teachers learning through the collaborative design of technology-enhanced science lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 673-394. doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9444-1
Kaleli-Yilmaz, G. (2015). The views of mathematics teachers of the factors affecting the integration of technology in mathematics courses. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 132-148. doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.8
Kang, G. Y. (2016). The value of coaching: Collaborative relationships spur professional growth. Journal of Staff Development, 37(5), 49-52.
Kelly, J., & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection:
A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27.
Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
King, F. (2014). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 89-111. doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.823099
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(20), 131-152. doi:
10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., & Graham, C. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.
Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (pp. 101-111). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9
Kumar, S., Dawson, K. (2014). The impact factor: Measuring student professional growth in an online doctoral program. TechTrends, 58(4), 89-97. doi:
10.1007/s11528-014-0773-2
K20 OETT/OK-ACTS Grants To Schools. Retrieved from
https://k20center.ou.edu/rograms/phase2/oett-okacts-grants-schools/
K20 Practices of High Achieving Schools. Retrieved from https://k20center.ou.edu/index.php/programs/
Lee, H., & Li, M. (2015). Principal leadership and its link to the development of a school’s teacher culture and teaching effectiveness: A case study of an award-winning teaching team at an elementary school. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 10(4), 1-17.
Liscouski, J. (2008). Technology management: Product life cycle. Retrieved from:
www.labmanager.com/laboratory-technology/2008/07/technology-management-product-life-cycle#.WP0dSTijyvIU
Lixum, W. (2013). Evaluation of outcome-based learning in an undergraduate English language program. Research in Higher Education Journal, 20, 1-18.
Locico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Loeb, H. (2016). Zooming in on the partnership of a successful teaching team: examining cooperation, action and recognition. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 387-403. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2016.1185377
Maich, K. & Hall, C. (2016). Implementing iPads in the inclusive classroom setting.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(3), 145-150.
doi:10.1177/1053451215585793
Main, K., Pendergast, D., & Virtue, D. (2015). Core features of effective continuing professional development for the middle years: A tool for reflection. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 38(10), 1-18. doi:
10.1080/19404476.2015.11658177
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minshew, L., & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy in 1:1 iPad integration in middle school science and math classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 15(3), 334-367.
Mirzajani, H., Mahmud, R., Ayub, A., & Wong, S. (2016). Teachers’ acceptance of ICT and its integration in the classroom. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 26-40. doi: 10.1108/QAE-06-2014-0025
Misfeldt, M. & Zacho, L. (2016). Supporting primary-level mathematics teachers’
collaboration in designing and using technology-based scenarios. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2-3), 227-241. doi: 10.1007/s10857-015-9336-5
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Morel, N. (2014). Setting the stage for collaboration: An essential skill for professional growth. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 36-39.
Moreno, M. (2014). Program evaluation: A review of impact, method and emerging
trends for music education. Canadian Music Educator, 55(3), 32-37.
Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology.
Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16-28.
Nikolova, N., & Andersen, L. (2017). Creating shared value through service-learning in management education. Journal of Management Education, 41(5), 750-780. doi:
10.1177/1052562917715883
Nugent, E., Shirilla, N., Hafeez, A., O’Riordain D, Traynor, O., Harrison, A., & Neary, P.
(2013). Developing and evaluation of a simulator-based laparoscopic training program for surgical novices. Surg Endosc, 27, 214-221.
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), 2006. The logical chain. London: Ofsted.
Oliver, K., & Townsend, L. (2013). Preparing teachers for technology integration:
Programs, competencies, and factors from the literature. National Teacher Education Journal, 6(3), 41-60.
Oluwatumbi, O. S. (2015). E-classroom of the 21st century: Information gaps. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(18), 67-71.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: